The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14431, in the name of Kate Forbes, on the programme for government—growing Scotland’s green economy. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
15:01
I know that the whole Parliament is united in expressing its disappointment at Petroineos’s decision to cease refining at Grangemouth in 2025. It is deeply regrettable that, despite the collaborative efforts of the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments over two Administrations, Petroineos has chosen that course of action.
Our first thoughts are, of course, with the workers. That is why we have immediately announced a package of measures to support Grangemouth and the wider local geography, with a targeted skills intervention for impacted workers, an enhanced Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal, and support for project willow, which is Petroineos’s cross-site study to examine future low-carbon options for the site.
Today’s news also highlights the urgency of the just transition, which is why the publication of our “Green Industrial Strategy” is so timely. It is now even more important that we seize the opportunities of a net zero economy. The green industrial strategy has a clear and powerful mission:
“to ensure that Scotland realises the maximum possible economic benefit from the opportunities created by the global transition to net zero.”
Before the Deputy First Minister moves on from our industrial past, would she care to comment on the situation at Liberty Steel? I hear some very concerning reports about the future of that plant. Has the Deputy First Minister had discussions with Liberty Steel? If so, what were the outcomes?
We are engaging on the basis of all of Scotland’s key industrial sites and key assets. We know that there are challenges across the economy. Our commitment to the workers at that site and indeed other sites that are key to the just transition remains, and that engagement is on-going.
We want to make certain that the growth of the world’s net zero economy means good, well-paid jobs here in Scotland—jobs for today and jobs for future generations. That is not inevitable; it will not happen by accident. As I said, seizing the opportunities requires decisive action, and the green industrial strategy is decisive. It focuses on securing investment across Scotland in the critical national infrastructure that our new economy demands and in the ports, harbours and highly productive businesses that find their place in globally competitive supply chains.
The Deputy First Minister talks about good, well-paid jobs in Scotland. She may be aware of today’s announcement by Alexander Dennis that it could be shedding about 160 jobs. It is blaming the Scottish bus fund, which has funded more vehicles being produced in China than anywhere else—or certainly than in Scotland. Will she say something about that serious issue?
That is an extremely important issue and it has received the attention of the First Minister as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport. We must find ways of supporting businesses, while operating within subsidy control measures. There is no doubt about the significant importance of Alexander Dennis.
I will get back to the subject at hand. We have choices to make now that will shape the future. In our green industrial strategy, we choose to make Scotland more prosperous for the next generation of Scots. We have chosen prosperity with a purpose—prosperity that is a vehicle to improve public services and a just transition to net zero that has fair work at its heart and leaves no one behind.
The green industrial strategy is not the start of the journey: we have solid foundations on which to build. Since 2007, Scottish gross domestic product growth per head has been higher and our productivity growth has been more than double that of the United Kingdom. Our unemployment has been at near record lows for the past eight years. Although those feats are impressive, we are tethered to a UK economy that has stagnated. Most parties agree with that.
Even if we do not have the full economic powers that independence would bring, there is still much that we can, and will, do to help Scotland to prosper. We face many challenges, from the pressures on our public finances, to the hurdles that we face to reach net zero by 2045. Those challenges are not insurmountable. The message is that they offer enormous opportunity. If we can create the conditions for long-term economic growth, the next generation of Scots will benefit.
That is what our programme for government did last week. It identified the actions that we are taking to create an environment that enables development, investment and job creation. Investment now is critical if we are to transform and grow our economy. We are seeing evidence of that already. Last year, the Japanese company Sumitomo confirmed its decision to build a £350 million high-voltage-cable manufacturing plant at Nigg. It is estimated that the plant will create around 330 jobs and bring £350 million of inward investment into Scotland. The company could have gone anywhere, but it chose to come to Scotland and the Highlands. That is just one of many projects that have made Scotland the top-performing region outside London for attracting inward investment for the ninth year in a row.
I appreciate the Deputy First Minister giving way. Industry members have said to me that a very large anchor contract with, for example, the Berwick Bank wind farm would provide a ballast within the supply chain and allow its development over a period of years. We know that there have been significant delays in sanctioning Berwick Bank. Could the Deputy First Minister give us any update as to when that might happen so that we can try to unlock the economic potential?
The member is experienced enough to know that that is a live application, so I will not comment on it, but I will comment on the principle. It is absolutely right that we want to build clusters where there is an activity that attracts more businesses to locate and invest in Scotland.
That is what we are seeing near the Port of Cromarty Firth. On top of the £300 million of investment by the Quantum Capital Group, there is a further £100 million of joint investment by the Scottish National Investment Bank and the UK Infrastructure Bank to put the Ardersier port at the forefront of Scotland’s energy transition and offshore wind capability. We hope that that will inevitably create more activity in the area.
Just today, the Scottish National Investment Bank has announced a £20 million investment in ZeroAvia to bolster the aerospace supply chain and kick-start the market for hydrogen electric engines in Scotland. That is hugely exciting stuff.
I make it clear to the chamber and to those who are listening that Scotland is open for investment and that we are open for business. We want to work with industry to capitalise on the opportunities that are in front of us and, where we agree on the way forward, to work constructively with the UK Government and its institutions, too.
Businesses across the country have told me of the importance of speeding up our planning processes to unlock investment. That is why we have created a new planning hub to make quicker decisions on renewables and housing developments, and launched a planning apprenticeship programme to build a pipeline of skilled future planners. The planning hub will be based in the Improvement Service and will provide direct and immediate support to planning authorities. In this first year, it will focus on practical action to improve consenting for hydrogen developments, increasing capacity in the system and giving investors confidence. We are also bolstering our resourcing across planning and consenting teams to improve engagement and introduce better guidance, and, ultimately, to increase the pace at which we determine applications.
We are creating a business environment in which Scottish entrepreneurs and innovators have the support that they require to take risks, to start up, and to diversify and expand. That includes maximising the impact of the Techscaler network, which already stands at more than 700 businesses, raising more than £70 million across them all since they joined the programme.
We must not forget that Scotland’s greatest asset is, ultimately, our people. We know that the transition to net zero will continue to create demand for new skills, while our current businesses require a skilled workforce. That is why we are ensuring that workers in carbon-intensive industries can access the skills development that they need to seize new opportunities in growth sectors, and why we are supporting a range of initiatives through the just transition fund, such as the energy transition skills hub.
We are also undertaking a significant reform of the skills and education system, a core aim of which is to make it more agile and more responsive to the skills requirements of Scotland’s economy. We are taking the lead on national skills planning and strengthening regional skills planning approaches. We are empowering people to join the workforce, taking important action to support women’s participation in the economy—for example, through policies on funded early learning and childcare—alongside tackling workplace inequalities through the fair work first approach in public sector funding. We have prioritised the actions that will deliver the underlying conditions to enable our economy to thrive and deliver in the net zero future that we all want to see.
That also requires us to make substantial investment. The Scottish Government has limited borrowing powers for capital investment, and the strategy does not seek to compete with the scale of public investment, spending and subsidies attached to recent industrial strategies in the US or China or to the European green deal. We need a UK Government that recognises and keeps pace with the level of capital investment that is required for net zero. Labour, I believe, once pledged that it would invest an additional £28 billion a year, recognising the importance of that capital investment.
Our strategy applies focus and sets a clear direction. It prioritises opportunity areas where Scotland has existing strengths and where those strengths are most likely to lead to growth, including our exports. We want to target those opportunities that have the potential to reach significant scale in terms of value, and create high-quality jobs and the capacity to unlock and enable other industries’ markets and opportunities, with growth at home and abroad.
That strategy prioritises five key opportunity areas: wind; carbon capture, utilisation and storage; professional and financial services; hydrogen; and clean industries. Offshore wind is the single most important, and immediate, opportunity.
On carbon capture, utilisation and storage, the Scottish Government announced £80 million of funding more than two years ago. We have had clarification that £2 million is going to be coming imminently. Is there a timescale for when the £80 million will be spent?
When it is required. The member will know that we have been waiting for quite a long time on CCUS, and I am sure that he has an interest in seeing that work progress as quickly as possible.
We are one of the best-placed nations in Europe to deploy CCUS, given our unrivalled access to vast CO2 storage potential in the North Sea, but we urgently need the UK Government to make a final decision about the Acorn project; that is this Government’s focus.
As I draw my comments to a close, I note that, in each of those five priority areas, we have the infrastructure, the talent and skills, and the enormous potential that we need. I appreciate that there will be slight differences of opinion across the chamber, which no doubt we will hear during the debate this afternoon. Nevertheless, the point still stands: we have unprecedented opportunity in front of us if we choose to take it.
The Scottish Government cannot deliver all of the benefits of net zero on its own—it will require hard work. In “Green Industrial Strategy”, we have been clear about where we will focus our efforts and attention, and we hold out the hand of welcome to any investor, developer, business or workforce that wants to work with us in order to unlock the potential of those sectors and deliver prosperity to Scotland—prosperity with a purpose that will lead to resilient public services, tackle child poverty and enable us to meet our net zero targets.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the actions outlined in the Programme for Government 2024-25 to grow the economy, eradicate child poverty, invest in Scotland’s public services, and tackle the climate and nature emergencies; welcomes the publication of the Green Industrial Strategy to ensure that Scotland and its communities benefit economically from the global transition to net zero, including the creation of good, well-paid jobs; acknowledges the need to translate Scotland’s strengths into competitive advantages in the global race; agrees that actions to promote investment, attract and develop a skilled workforce, support fair work and encourage innovation are essential for transforming Scotland’s economy, and recognises that, by laying out concrete actions to accelerate the transition to net zero and position the green economy for long-term success, the Green Industrial Strategy will help build internationally competitive clusters in sectors such as onshore and offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and green professional services.
I call Douglas Lumsden to speak to and move amendment S6M-14431.2.
15:15
I will start by sharing our concerns about the announcement on Grangemouth today; our thoughts are with all the workers and families that we have relied on for decades to keep the lights on and keep the country moving.
Today’s debate was supposed to be about the programme for government and growing Scotland’s green economy. It was supposed to be an opportunity to focus on what the Scottish Government has achieved—or not achieved—over the past 17 years and what it plans to do to fix its mistakes over the next 18 months. Instead, we have a strategy document that was published yesterday, which focuses on a narrow part of our net zero ambition and misses out a huge tranche of policy work that the Parliament should be discussing.
We should be discussing the fact that the devolved Scottish National Party Government has missed eight of its 12 net zero targets, and the fact that funding has been cut in key areas that would help us to achieve our net zero targets. Those key areas of policy impact every one of us and our constituents. The transport, net zero and just transition budget was cut by £29.3 million; the rail services budget was cut by £80 million; the just transition fund was cut by three quarters; and support for sustainable travel was cut by 60 per cent.
While Mr Lumsden is engaged in this period of reflection, does he want to touch on the fact that the UK Government subsidy change, from renewables obligation certificates—ROCs—to contracts for difference, happened at a key time for onshore wind, and that the UK Government could have helped the onshore wind industry to be even further ahead than it is now?
I am sure that mistakes were made in the past as growing industries came forward and that all Governments could look back and want to change how things were done.
The future transport fund has been cut by 60 per cent; the green economy budget has been cut completely; the energy efficiency and decarbonisation budget has been cut by £9.3 million; and the energy transition budget has been cut by £33 million. I can see why the cabinet secretary would rather not talk about that today.
I appreciate that Douglas Lumsden and his colleagues will probably have to go through excessive negativity about Scotland’s economy, but can he rise to the opportunity that is presented by our transition to net zero and reflect on the fact that, since this is the ninth year in a row that we have attracted the most inward investment outside London, inward investors must see something in Scotland that he does not?
Of course there are opportunities, and I will come to them, but we need to ensure that we make the transition in the correct way. I have concerns about the impact of transition on some communities, and I will address them as I go forward.
Yesterday, we saw the new strategy, although it would have been helpful if it had been available more than 24 hours before the debate. That would have given us more time to digest it and go through it, so that we could have had a better debate than we might have today.
The strategy makes zero mention of our biggest energy industry—oil and gas—and that cements the industry’s concern that the Government is offering a cliff edge in terms of transition. There is no just transition to green energy without the inclusion of our oil and gas sector. While we continue to need oil and gas, we must work with the industry to produce it on these shores with high standards, lower transportation impact and costs, and support for our local industries, businesses and communities.
The strategy is a slap in the face to those industries, and the exclusion of our largest energy industry is simply a disgrace. The oil and gas sector is working tirelessly to move towards net zero and is investing billions in technology and research to achieve those goals. It is committed to developing new industries, some of which are mentioned in the paper, but it recognises that, while we need oil and gas, it is best produced on these shores.
On a matter of pure fact, the member talked about the investment that the oil and gas industry is making tirelessly in the transition. Does he not acknowledge the fact that the oil and gas majors globally are still putting vastly more investment into more fossil fuel extraction than they are into renewables? They have been described by the United Nations as making, at best, a marginal contribution to global investment in renewables.
Once again, Patrick Harvie seems to ignore the fact that much of the investment in renewables is coming from profits from oil and gas. If we switch off the oil and gas industry, those profits will not be generated and we will not have the transition that we all want. He has his head in the sand once again over this.
I do not know who the Scottish Government thinks will invest in new energy technology in the future. It is not going to be the chocolate industry; it is going to be the oil and gas industry. We need it to invest, and I am sure that the Government agrees with that.
Some 93,000 jobs rely on the oil and gas sector. It is the biggest provider of energy in Scotland and one of our biggest industries, but it was not mentioned in the strategy document. That is utterly shameful of this Government, which is intent on taking the industry off a cliff edge by failing to listen to its concerns, focusing on the central belt and ignoring the needs of the north-east.
In reading the strategy, one thing that struck me was the reliance on working with local government. I would be interested to hear from the cabinet secretary what discussions have been held with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the development of the strategy, particularly around the proposed changes to the planning system and the delivery of local development plans—a key area of work for our local authority colleagues.
The strategy states that land will be identified for affordable housing, but there is no detail about what that will mean for local authorities. Perhaps that can be covered in the cabinet secretary’s closing remarks.
My intervention is in good faith. A lot of those actions have come out of engagement with local government. For example, when it comes to the planning hub or the masterplan consent areas, a lot of the ideas originated in the debates and discussions between the Scottish Government and local government. I hope that that gives the member some comfort, although I probably need to do some follow-up work by talking to local government post publication of the strategy.
I thank the Deputy First Minister; that is very helpful.
There is much in the strategy, but I feel that it is lacking in detail and targets, and it misses so much. We would like to know when we are likely to see the energy strategy and just transition plan, the national marine plan and details on the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024, which is framework legislation with little detail. We also want to know when carbon budgets will be produced and when electric vehicle charging points will be rolled out.
I would also like to have more detail on hydrogen. I hope that Grangemouth will play a huge part in our hydrogen strategy going forward, especially after the news today. I would like to hear more about what we will do with the hydrogen when it is produced and how we will do it. I often get frustrated to hear that we can export hydrogen to other countries, because I think that we should be a bit more ambitious than that. Instead of exporting it to other countries for them to produce goods—
Will the member give way?
Of course.
I agree with Mr Lumsden that hydrogen should not be only for export, but one of the things that was holding back hydrogen production was the inability of the previous UK Government to deal with storage and transportation regulations on hydrogen. I hope that the new Labour Government will do something differently from the Tories. Does he agree with me?
Any way that we can improve the market for hydrogen would be a good thing.
To go back to my point, if we are producing hydrogen, let us use it in this country to make things ourselves that can then be exported, and not just export the hydrogen itself. As for carbon capture, use and storage—about which I made an intervention earlier—I would have liked to see more detail on that. The Scottish National Party Government announced £80 million to support the Scottish cluster more than two years ago, but very little has been spent. I am a bit disappointed about the lack of detail on that in the strategy.
To deliver an industrial strategy, we need to make sure that we have the correct infrastructure in place around Scotland. When will roads such as the A9 and A96 be dualled? Those are key projects for the north-east but they are lacking any timetable, detail or budgetary considerations.
Yesterday, we debated ScotRail and the importance of rail as key to meeting our net zero targets when it comes to transport. Yet, the devolved SNP Government is doing everything that it can to push people off the trains and make them increasingly reliant on cars.
The Scottish Conservatives continue to be the only voice in the Parliament sticking up for the oil and gas sector, appreciating its vital place in our move to net zero and green energy. We are committed to prioritising energy security through a balanced mix of energy sources that will ensure our energy security for decades to come. We want to see more people on our trains—
Mr Lumsden, I appreciate that you have been extremely generous in taking so many interventions, but you need to bring your remarks to a close and move your amendment.
I will come to a close soon.
We support the development of renewable technologies to build Scotland as a powerhouse of renewable energies, but we want to do that in a way that takes communities with us and we are against the mass industrialisation of the north-east. We will take a close look at what changes will come on the planning side, and we back nuclear energy.
I move amendment S6M-14431.2, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert:
“is disappointed with the actions outlined in the Programme for Government 2024-25, as they fail to set out an ambitious plan to grow Scotland’s green economy and tackle the climate and nature emergencies; notes with disappointment the short time available to MSPs, industry experts and vital stakeholders to scrutinise the Green Industrial Strategy, which undermines the Scottish Parliament’s ability to hold the Scottish Government to account; expresses dissatisfaction with the Scottish Government in its failure to publish the delayed Energy Strategy and Just Transition Plan and its continued opposition to vital oil and gas extraction; condemns the UK Labour administration’s windfall tax, which risks 35,000 jobs and reduces the economic value of the oil and gas sector by £13 billion, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver a jobs first transition and support the Energy Transition Zone in Aberdeen.”
I call Sarah Boyack to speak to and move amendment S6M-14431.3.
15:25
I welcome the publication of the green industrial strategy, but I would have welcomed it more enthusiastically if it had arrived sooner so that I and other colleagues—never mind stakeholders—would have been able to properly scrutinise the report before today’s debate. It is worth reminding ministers that it was first announced in the programme for government in 2021, so we have been waiting a long time.
The points made by Douglas Lumsden, with whom I do not always agree, were very accurate about the raft of cuts being made by the SNP Government, delaying the progress that we urgently need, on things such as the climate change adaptation programme, the energy strategy, the solar ambition for Scotland and the sectoral just transition plans. We need a joined-up approach if we are going to deliver on climate change and deliver the thousands of jobs that we urgently require. Had the strategy come out earlier, we could have got to work, but instead we are lagging behind and losing out on skills and resources, while the Scottish Government dithers and delays. If we look at what is in green industrial strategy, it still feels like a rushed job, even though it has been hanging around for three years.
The Deputy First Minister mentioned the importance of a strategy for ensuring that our education and skills system is responsive to green economic priorities, but we still do not have that. Most of the plans outlined in the climate emergency skills action plan have never come to be, and the workers and our industries are still waiting for an offshore skills passport.
I attended an excellent conference of the Energy Efficiency Association yesterday, and it was striking to see the extent to which we simply do not have the skills to refit our homes and buildings, which would make them energy efficient and more affordable to heat and power. The lack of support for the supply chains was stark, and that support is crucial if we are going to decarbonise our homes and buildings. The message that came across from all the businesses there was that they need that support now.
We need more apprenticeships and more spaces in our colleges, and not just in a couple of cities—we need them right across the country, and we need them now.
We need support for people who want to install solar heat and power systems and innovative battery storage and heating systems. The fact that Mitsubishi announced last week that it might cut 440 jobs in Livingston is due to a decline in product demand. That is deeply worrying, given that its product is one of the solutions. We are not seeing the action on supply chains that is urgently needed.
In the past few weeks, we have also heard about the missed opportunities with the ScotWind contract, but the issue is not just about extracting the money and spending it to support supply chains. There has been a complete lack of conditionality with approvals and a lack of joined-up thinking that would get more renewables manufactured in Scotland—not just in recent years but over the past 17 years.
I have had the privilege of seeing the work that is being done in the port of Leith, which will give us home-grown supply chains. Manufacturing renewables there would be a huge opportunity, and we cannot afford to miss it. It was good to see the work that is being done in Ardersier as well. There are companies that are prepared to invest, but we need more support for manufacturing. We cannot just keep relying on imports for key components.
The problem with “Green Industrial Strategy” is that it is too vague. We see the same words peppered throughout the document: “support”, “explore”, “consider”. They are nice-sounding words but bear little connection to actual action and implementation. We have had 17 years of warm words, and that is not enough for a critical economic sector for our economy and to tackle our climate crisis.
The member sounds hauntingly like the Conservatives in her negativity, and I am relieved to hear some positivity about the port of Leith and Ardersier.
The document is very action-oriented. One of the criticisms of it will inevitably be that we do not name check every sector under the sun.
On the member’s specific point, there are many examples of where the Scottish supply chain is outperforming international competitors. I put to the member the same question that I put to the Conservatives: why do international investors seem to disbelieve what the member is saying and want to invest?
I am saying not that we have not had investment but that, whenever I meet people in the industry, whether from oil and gas or renewables, supply chains are the number 1 issue that they all mention, together with getting more support for their workers. We have fantastic natural resources and a wealth of skills, but we need to turn that into reality.
The Great British energy company will be critical. Last week, a raft of new offshore wind farms were approved across the UK. We need to make sure that such investment comes to Scotland. Labour’s national wealth fund is an ideal vehicle for investment in Scotland’s ports. We have talked about that before, but we need to get on with it. We could have a green supply chain infrastructure across the whole of Scotland, which would give us thousands of new jobs.
People want to do that. We know from talking to workers in oil and gas that they have transferable skills that can still work in oil and gas but can also be brought into the renewables sector—especially the offshore sector. Oil and gas companies, which will be with us for decades, are now also investing in renewables. That joined-up approach is happening up in the north-east, but we need more of it, and it needs a just transition.
We need action on the skills passport, because we could get going now. The urgency is critical. We have already heard about other companies pulling out and about the Grangemouth announcement.
As a former planner, I welcome the reforms to planning consenting, but there is not enough detail and not enough about a timeline. The problem is that we should have been doing that years ago. Planners have left local authorities, which have faced cuts, and we need more new planners to deliver a speedier effective planning process that works for our communities and the renewables sector.
We need more information on delivery. Warm words are not enough. We have been critiqued by the Just Transition Commission, the Just Transition Partnership and work by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. Research is available that says that more needs to be done. The Transition Economics report was clear: we need a massive ramp-up in Scottish supply chains, so we need more work to be done.
We have had ambitious targets, which were supported across party, but we have not seen the necessary ambition from Government. We have lost vital skills, there has been lots of outsourcing of our industry and supply chains, and we have lost money that could have been raised and spent on more ambitious action.
We need a joined-up approach. It is not just about producing energy; it is also about where we use it, how we use it, whether we use it more effectively, and whether we use all the new innovations that are coming in transport, building, land, ports and the energy system.
We need to do better than the green industrial strategy. However, we will be constructive and we will work with the Scottish Government, because the alternative is more failure, more missed climate targets and more workers who have skills and experience losing their jobs. Our communities, our workers, our businesses and our planet cannot afford that.
I move amendment S6M-14431.3, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert:
“believes that one of the Scottish National Party’s biggest political failures is its failure to turn Scotland’s enormous renewable energy resources into jobs, wealth and social good for communities across Scotland.”
15:33
Most who are in the chamber will know my background in heavy engineering and renewable energy. As my entry in the register of members’ interests indicates, until I was elected in 2021 I worked for Orbital Marine Power, building the world’s most powerful tidal turbine. The hull of that 72m-long 680-tonne machine was fabricated in Cupar in Scotland, with steel from Liberty Steel in Motherwell, and the turbine was assembled and launched at the port of Dundee. It currently operates in the Fall of Warness, off Eday in Orkney, generating clean predictable power as the tides change direction four times a day. An earlier iteration of the orbital turbine was the first tidal turbine in the world to produce clean, green hydrogen energy—also in Orkney.
I know at first hand the potential for manufacturing, renewable energy, and heavy and marine industries in Scotland, and I know the challenges that the sector faces. Scotland needs a new vision for our economy, which reinvigorates our manufacturing sector, creates jobs in growing low-carbon industries and builds a skilled workforce.
With the climate crisis upon us, we need to make a decisive turn away from oil and gas, phase out fossil fuels and reduce energy demand by regulating to decarbonise homes and buildings. All of that opens up enormous opportunities: offshore and onshore wind, green hydrogen, forestry and sustainable building materials, retrofit heat pumps and heat networks, solar power, tidal power, hydropower and all the supply chain and maintenance contracts that support those growing industries. Those are the specific industries that will create wealth for Scotland, jobs for people and move us rapidly along our path to achieving net zero by 2045, yet they are largely missing from the Scottish Government’s green industrial strategy, whose vision for renewables focuses solely on the already successful wind sector.
Green hydrogen is produced from water and electricity—both things that Scotland has in abundance. Green hydrogen is the ultimate in clean power. It can be generated off-grid and it is powerful and portable. It is the future power source for buses, tractors, heavy goods vehicles and heavy industry. Producing hydrogen from fossil fuels—sometimes called blue and grey hydrogen—is, at best, a way to temporarily mitigate some of the emissions from hard-to-decarbonise industries. At worst, it is accelerating climate change by prolonging fossil fuel extraction and use. However, the green industrial strategy does not differentiate. Green hydrogen, not fossil fuel hydrogen, is the future, and the Scottish Government should say so clearly in its industrial strategy.
The green industrial strategy places a significant emphasis on carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which it presents as a core pillar of Scotland’s green economy. Experts and campaigners such as Friends of the Earth argue that CCUS is a false solution, as it prolongs the life of fossil fuel industrial complexes and distracts from the need to rapidly phase out carbon-intensive industries. Carbon capture and storage is wildly expensive. It is also very energy intensive. If it works, it presents us with the prospect of paying for our energy twice—once when the oil and gas is extracted from the ground, and again when we try to pump the emissions produced back underground. Who will pay for that? That is not the route to cheap long-term energy.
To date, CCUS has not been demonstrated to work at scale. The only possible place for it is in the temporary abatement of hard-to-decarbonise industries while those industries are phased out or changed over to sustainable power sources. CCUS is not a long term or safe investment for our economy, and public money should not be spent in supporting it. Public money would be better spent supporting people into engineering and skilled trades, supporting Scotland’s engineering and manufacturing businesses to expand, upgrade their information technology systems and machinery, and investing in harbours, cranes and the infrastructure that heavy and marine industries need.
I very much agree that we need that infrastructure investment. Would the member agree that we also need investment in solar, whether it is heat or power, and in wave and hydro? There are other opportunities, in addition to renewable wind, that we should be seizing on now.
Having worked in the wave industry, I might take that up with the member separately. However, I absolutely understand that, in putting forth a green industrial strategy, it is right for the Government to choose big industries to help us direct. Solar in Scotland is an important power source, but it is never going to be that big industry that we need to redirect. I would like to see more action and support for solar, but I can understand why the Scottish Government is making a specific direction here. We absolutely want to support solar, particularly in domestic settings and in remote and business decarbonisation.
Instead of being invested in CCUS, public money would be better used to invest in public transport and build not only bus routes and train stations but hydrogen-powered buses and trains.
On CCUS, we have the Scottish cluster, but does the member think that that should just be scrapped and all the jobs lost?
Public investment is what I have a particular issue with. The member talked about the massive profits that oil and gas giants are making around the world. If oil and gas giants need to mitigate the harm that they are creating through their emissions, they can develop and invest in that technology—they certainly have the money. Expecting the public purse, which we could be using to invest in schools, hospitals and all those good things, to pay money to those industry giants to mitigate the harm that they are doing is not a reasonable course of action.
Will Lorna Slater give way again?
I am sorry, but I need to make progress in my speech.
The member will need to move towards concluding her remarks.
In the green industrial strategy, it would have been good to see a tie-in with an ambitious heat in building strategy. Creating demand in Scotland for heat pumps would support Scottish manufacturing, including factories such as Mitsubishi Electric, which manufactures heat pumps. However, more than 430 workers in that factory face redundancy. Creating the conditions through regulation to increase demand for heat pumps would support Scottish manufacturers, create savings on their energy bills for home owners and reduce emissions.
I am disappointed and frustrated by the lack of a comprehensive plan to re-industrialise our economy and by the lack of vision to, at the same time, seize Scotland’s opportunities to leap ahead on our journey to net zero. Instead, we appear to have an attempt to string along fossil fuel industries while continuing on a trajectory to miss the 2045 net zero target.
The green industrial strategy is nothing new. It is a feeble attempt to keep up business as usual for as long as possible, while failing on climate, failing to build industries with a long-term future—
Ms Slater, you need to conclude your remarks, please.
—and failing to take our economy in a new direction.
I move amendment S6M-14431.1, to leave out from first “recognises” and insert:
“acknowledges the urgent need to invest in Scotland’s economy to eradicate child poverty, tackle the climate and nature emergencies and to ensure that public services meet the needs of the people of Scotland; agrees on the need for a new vision for the economy, including a Green Industrial Strategy that reinvigorates the manufacturing sector, creates jobs in growing low-carbon industries and builds a skilled workforce; regrets that the Scottish Government’s Green Industrial Strategy fails to set an ambitious plan for growth in renewable energy beyond wind, including solar, wave, tidal and green hydrogen, and prioritises continued investment in fossil fuel extraction over long-term sustainability; believes that carbon capture, utilisation and storage remains speculative and that investment in these unproven technologies is a poor use of public funds during a climate crisis, and considers that the Scottish Government must not miss the opportunity to reduce energy demand, by regulating to decarbonise homes and buildings, which will stimulate skills, jobs and innovation in Scotland.”
15:41
Towards the tail end of the summer, I agreed to visit the Seagreen Wind Energy offshore wind farm, which is off the coast of Angus. As we sped over the choppy waters about 20km out, people were vomiting on either side of me. It was a joy to eventually reach the wind farm and to meet Maurice Golden, who was bouncing around on the boat—hard as nails, Maurice Golden—with a massive smile on his face, watching everybody else suffer on the journey.
When we got there, it was quite inspiring to see the wind farm. It is powering 1.6 million homes, which is a substantial amount of energy. It created 400 jobs, and there are 80 jobs in servicing at its base in Montrose. The disappointing bit is that most of the steelwork was done on the other side of the planet, which was a missed opportunity, because Burntisland Fabrications and other facilities in Scotland missed out on being part of that great innovation off the coast of Angus.
I thank Willie Rennie for being one of the first members to inject a bit of positivity, in that there are things that are working in Scotland. I agree with him on the principle that our assets should create jobs here and not elsewhere and I commend to him some of the early work that is being done. The whole point of the green industrial strategy is to change things so that, the next time we have something like that wind farm project, jobs are created in Scotland. I refer him to Flowcopter as an example of the Scottish supply chain completely disrupting the international market.
Kate Forbes is so enthusiastic that I will send her out with Maurice Golden on another trip to the Seagreen offshore wind farm to see how she copes with it. She might not be so enthusiastic the next time.
The hard thing for the people of Fife and Angus to take is that they are paying for that work off the coast of Angus through their electricity bills, but they are not getting the economic benefit in their pockets, and that needs to change. If the minister is indicating that the new strategy will change all that, I am pleased—that will be a positive thing.
I have another positive thing to say. The Sumitomo plant up in Cromarty is a good step, but it is matched by many other disinvestments. Mitsubishi is a real concern, especially when we have so much of a focus on heat pumps, as is BiFab, which I have already referred to. In addition, although it has not been mentioned much, there is the Shell disinvestment from the ScotWind licence that it applied for earlier this year.
Willie Rennie might recall that, earlier today, during First Minister’s question time—I think that it was during FMQs or general question time—I asked a question on the issue of the almost 9 per cent cut in our capital budget by the UK Government. Does Willie Rennie agree that, given that we are talking about the importance of inward investment, the cut must be reversed?
If we are going to get anywhere in this debate, we need to rise above the battle about whether it is Westminster’s fault, councils’ fault or anybody else’s fault. We need to focus on the steps that this Parliament can take and the powers that we have to do things. We can have a debate about capital on another occasion, but I think that the strategy has been published in an effort to lift the debate and focus on what the Parliament can do.
If we are talking about money, the member needs to be careful, because all the income from the ScotWind round has now been spent on repairing the financial mismanagement of the SNP Government. The member should be careful about entering into a debate about finances.
Given today’s decision about Grangemouth and my concerns about Liberty Steel, a sharp focus is required to make sure that the new strategy works, because the jobs that we are talking about will not be a bonus; they are jobs to replace the jobs that are being lost in other sectors. We therefore need to work incredibly hard to make sure that the strategy is a success, otherwise Scotland will not just lose out on the opportunity but will be left with a massive legacy.
I welcome the strategy that has been published, but it is very high level. We need to see a lot more detail if we are to make it work. In my view, the essential element is that we make sure that there is long-term continuity. Decisions that have been made by Governments elsewhere have resulted in short-term changes in the rhetoric and the plans, which creates uncertainty in the sector. That means that investors are less likely to make the long-term investments that are essential in ensuring that we make a success of the sector.
We also need a swift and efficient regulatory process. There are huge concerns about that, especially because the ScotWind round was so large. There is concern that the regulatory process will not be able to cope with the massive number of applications. Given the volume of applications, the timely processing of those applications will be essential. We will need to encourage and give confidence to the sector to make sure that it follows through with the licences that it has successfully achieved.
The Berwick Bank project is an example of that. I know that it is complicated, but we need to make sure that the consent process meets the timescale for the next contracts for difference round, because if it does not, that will strike a real blow to confidence in the sector.
Finally, I would like to briefly mention a point that was made at yesterday’s conference of the Energy Efficiency Association. It is an important point, and I hope that the minister will take it away and consider it with her colleagues. The latest round of area-based contracts for the insulation schemes has not been awarded. They were supposed to have been awarded earlier this year. That is causing significant concern among members of the Energy Efficiency Association, especially because the sector is subject to constant stopping and starting of the funding that is available through the industry or through the Government. I hope that the minister will take that issue away and do something about it.
We move to the open debate. Back benchers’ speeches should be up to six minutes.
15:47
I am glad that the motion opens with a simple statement about a big ambition—that of growing the economy to eradicate child poverty. That is different from the austerity and the economic policies of the Tory Government, which enriched the Tories’ millionaire and billionaire pals, and it is different from Labour’s continued austerity, which continues to impact on the poor, the frail and the elderly, as we saw only the other week with the cuts to winter fuel payments.
The economic growth that we are talking about is economic growth that is focused on generating the resources to lift children out of poverty. It is economic growth that will go hand in hand with investing in our public services. It is economic growth that we can use to tackle the climate emergency and build the new green, net zero economy.
At the heart of the Government’s ambition is the need to invest in growing Scotland’s green economy. The green industrial strategy aims to maximise Scotland’s wind economy; develop a self-sustaining carbon capture, utilisation and storage sector; support green economy professional and financial services; grow our hydrogen sector; and establish Scotland as a competitive centre for the clean, energy-intensive industries of the future.
That is in stark contrast to Labour reneging on the £28 billion of green investment that it once promised. By abandoning green investment in the net zero economy, it is clear that Labour’s plan lacks realism and ambition.
Does Kevin Stewart recognise that we have already put through legislation in the UK Parliament to establish GB Energy, that £16 billion has been committed to that work, and that that is critical to enabling the kind of investment that the Deputy First Minister is laying out today?
None of us actually know what GB Energy is, because Labour has not spelled it out.
GB Energy was promised to be headquartered in Aberdeen, but there seems to be a shift away from that. I hope that, at some point in the very near future, Labour ministers will spell out what GB Energy is for, and that they will live up to their promise and base it in Aberdeen.
Support for oil and gas in a net zero economy is not support for the old economy, but for the new economy. Let us be clear that oil and gas will be at the heart of the shift to the new green economy. People may be moving towards driving electric and hydrogen cars, but those cars will be made largely of plastic from oil and gas and they will drive on roads made of tar from oil and gas. It is not about just transport: petrochemicals are necessary to provide vital goods, from the clothes on our backs to the medicines in our prescriptions.
Today’s Grangemouth announcement is worrying. I wish Michelle Thomson well in her work to secure a new owner for Grangemouth. Without a home oil and gas industry, we will simply be left importing everything from abroad, which I am sure that none of us want.
We cannot allow Westminster to repeat the policy of Thatcher, who destroyed Scotland’s steel industry, and have the same thing happen to our energy industry. The future of energy production in Scotland is 100 per cent renewables, and it is vital that Scotland’s oil and gas sector transitions to renewable energy production.
At the core of that will be our oil and gas workers, who are the folk with the skills and talents to turn our hopes of a net zero future into a reality. They are the ones who can lay the foundations for wind farms miles offshore and scale to the top of wind turbines to repair them. However, workers need work not only today, but in the future, and they need continued work throughout.
At the heart of a just transition and building a green economy, we have to ensure that workers can move seamlessly from the oil and gas sector to good jobs in renewables.
Will the member give way?
The member will be concluding soon.
That is why I am pleased to see core commitments in the Scottish Government’s green industrial strategy to support people to retrain, to enhance the transferability of skills, and to encourage employers to invest in training.
Our offshore workers must not suffer the same fate under Labour rule from London as our miners suffered under Tory rule from London. Just this week, the TUC voted against Labour’s plans and insisted that a comprehensive strategy be developed to ensure that all workers in the North Sea have equivalent employment opportunities.
It is vital that we get this right, not only for Aberdeen—the oil and gas capital of Europe, which I hope will be the renewables capital of the world—but for the whole of Scotland. Scotland’s renewable energy sector is one of the greatest export opportunities—
Mr Stewart, you need to conclude.
—that we will ever have for our country. We must grasp that.
15:54
I start by making an abject apology to Kate Forbes, the Deputy First Minister; I have not yet had a chance to look at the document “Green Industrial Strategy”, which arrived with me only yesterday. I would have liked more time to read it but, as she will well know, the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill, which has landed in front of the committee that I am on, is taking up a considerable amount of my time. I apologise that I have only skimmed through the strategy document, but what I read on the first page was a requirement for “Maximising Scotland’s wind economy”. I want to drill down into that and explore how it will affect the Highlands.
The strategy says that the Government plans to increase the capacity of onshore wind farms from 8.8GW to 20GW. That is a huge increase—it is massive. Much of that capacity will be placed in the Highlands. I remind the Deputy First Minister, who also represents a constituency in that area, that there are 49 onshore wind farms, with 840-odd turbines, scattered randomly across the Highlands. I am sure that she will know that there are currently 41 applications in scoping, 23 that are in planning, 28 that have been approved and eight that are under construction. If she adds up those numbers, she will come up with a figure of 100 new wind farms to go up in the Highlands. That probably means that another 2,000 turbines will be dotted around our landscape.
I will park my remarks on that aspect of the strategy at this stage and move on to the infrastructure that will support it. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks has a policy that will invest £20 billion and lay 1,800km of new lines, of which 500km will be over parts of the Highlands, although some of them will be under water. That does not sound like much, but let me put that into context. As the Deputy First Minister drives down the A9 to come to work—as I do at the beginning of each week—she will see the Beauly to Denny power line. That is just one line, but I am reliably told that we will need another three such lines if we are to develop the strategy.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish the bit I am on first.
That is three further lines, which would make a total of four lines. The Deputy First Minister would probably not be able to see much of the Cairngorms as she goes past, because of the towers and power lines. On top of that there will be the battery storage facilities—which I am reliably told are now called “grid balancing facilities”, because that sounds more reasonable—that are already dotted across the Highlands. The last one of those that I saw was more than 80 acres in size.
I will give way to the Deputy First Minister.
First, I agree with Edward Mountain on the importance of communities not just putting up with disruption but getting a benefit from that infrastructure. The second aspect is to focus very much on offshore wind generation. The third, on which I hope Edward Mountain will agree with me, is that the transmission work is determined by Ofgem; power over that is reserved to the UK Government. Although there is domestic generation through Scottish Government planning, the electricity and the grid are reserved. To make things clear to communities who might be listening, all parties have a stake in that issue and it cannot just be put at the door of the Scottish Government.
I do not blame the Scottish Government for that at all; I just make the observation that SSEN has a map—which it will not disclose to us at the moment—that shows every single power line that it will need if we are to reach the 2045 target and every single connection that it is proposes to install across Scotland. Perhaps it would be better to display that information to communities rather than pretending that it is all down to Ofgem. SSEN knows what it needs, and Ofgem will give it the authority to do it, but SSEN ought to be more open.
Large bits of infrastructure are being dotted all over the Highlands, but there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to the pattern of work other than that it is being done to connect wind farms. I do not dispute that those bits of infrastructure will create new jobs, but such jobs tend to be transient. They will not make much difference to local communities, who are being promised all sorts of things, including new village halls. Only a certain number of new halls can be built, or existing ones painted, on the back of wind farm installations.
Wind farms need to deliver a lot more for communities, who need to feel the benefit of such infrastructure. They need to see that something is coming to them. I totally disagree that a one-off payment of, say, 5 per cent of the capital value of a wind farm is enough. The communities that are going to be blighted by the infrastructure dotted around the place need to not just see the power going south but to get cheap power and some benefit from that infrastructure.
I am conscious of the time, Presiding Officer, so I will simply say that I am hugely disappointed with the Scottish Government. We were promised that the £750 million that was raised from ScotWind would go towards improving our ability to cope with the net zero ambition, but the Scottish Government has frittered it away. The Scottish Government has spent a great deal of time during this session saying, “If only we’d had a sovereign wealth fund because of the oil that we have got.” Well, we had a sovereign wealth fund as a result of ScotWind, and we have spent it—we have spent not only the income from it, but also the capital.
I will just say that, when the Deputy First Minister is going through the green industrial strategy, she should remember that it is the Highlands that will put up with infrastructure and will be littered with turbines and power lines, and she will have to come up with a strategy to ensure that the people who live up there benefit from the infrastructure and do not just have to see it.
16:01
I will just make a few short remarks—you can be sure that I intend to come in well under the time allocated, Presiding Officer.
I welcome the initiative and, in my short remarks today, I will make a few points about it. However, I cannot speak today without making reference to the Grangemouth refinery, which is based in my constituency. I appreciate and understand that there is a long road to travel to try to get a positive outcome, and I simply note that I, as a constituency MSP, will play my part.
I welcome point 5 in “Green Industrial Strategy”, which calls for Scotland to become a centre for clean energy and the clean energy intensive industries of the future. I have always been ambitious for Scotland, and I am heartened to see us focusing on areas where we can compete at a global level. I am particularly pleased to note that, although there is considerable uncertainty about the facility at the moment, there is a prominent role for Grangemouth, with the document stating that a key part of the strategy involves utilising
“our existing industrial assets such as our port infrastructure, new Green Freeports and Grangemouth.”
I am also personally pleased to note the prominence given to the development of the hydrogen sector, not least as it is my belief that that is an area where Grangemouth has the potential to play a major role.
Innovation is recognised as being of critical importance and, in that regard, partnering with Scotland’s universities, Scottish business and the investment community will be key. I know that the Deputy First Minister understands the crucial role that our academic community can play, and that the return on investment can add real value, as well as positioning us for where we want to be. Since my election, I have spent time engaging with many of Scotland’s universities, particularly in relation to their research, and I add my voice to others who recently commended the work of the University of Dundee and its school of life sciences. I am pleased to see that the role of our universities is recognised in the strategy. However, I would like to see the retention of more commercialised research in Scotland. That is important.
The emphasis on partnership working is, of course, fundamental. The Government alone cannot fund all the investment that is required. We need to unlock the huge potential investment from business investors and the like. That will require strengthening the culture of partnership working where Government uses its convening power and financial heft where required. I give my now habitual reminder regarding the scale of investment that is needed globally. Although estimates vary, they are all counted in the trillions of pounds annually. As recently as March this year, the Scottish Fiscal Commission indicated that the Scottish Government needed to spend £1.1 billion, on average, every year into the future, at current prices. However, one of the most telling conclusions of the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s analysis was that
“the fiscal burden of reaching the UK’s net zero target may fall disproportionately on the Scottish Government because a greater share of the UK reduction in emissions relating to forestry and land use needs to take place in Scotland.”
It therefore makes it clear that the mechanism of Barnett consequentials will not be enough. The same SFC document also points out that the UK cannot and will not reach its net zero targets without Scotland.
I know that this is a matter that is dear to the heart of the Deputy First Minister. We need to ensure that our investment supports not only the growth and scale-up of existing businesses but also the creation of new businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators. My particular wish is for women entrepreneurs and business owners to take a fair seat at the table. I know that wish is shared by many in the chamber and it is something that I will continue to progress.
My final point is on housing. We need to build far more net zero homes. Although I welcome the increase in expenditure on housing in the recent programme for government, I believe that we need to do much, much more. I note the challenge of retrofitting existing housing stock, where there are no easy answers, and I welcome the efforts to court institutional investors and rebuild relationships with developers. However, the challenge for us all is significant.
16:05
It has long been my view that, if we are to rise to the challenge of the climate emergency, we need to think big and act radical. It has also long been my view that the Scottish Government is flat and pedestrian when we need passion, conviction and, above all else, a sense of urgency. This is not just about legislation; it is about leadership.
I have to say this: after 17 years in office, and over five years after the climate emergency was declared at the SNP conference, it is astonishing that the SNP Government has only yesterday finally got round to publishing a green industrial strategy thst is focused on five so-called opportunity areas. I am perplexed that the Government limits its horizons in this way. Shouldn’t every job be a green job? Shouldn’t the whole economy be a green economy? Where is the ambition?
There are other elements of the strategy that I think we must debate, too. The Scottish Government’s continued overreliance on foreign direct investment means that there is no redistribution of power and wealth in the economy, green or otherwise. In fact, what we are witnessing is a growing concentration of wealth and power in the economy. Nearly two out of three workers employed by Scotland’s larger businesses already work for companies owned either in the rest of the UK or, increasingly, overseas. Yet, with this latest strategy, what the Government is growing is not a green economy but a branch plant economy—and that has consequences. The steady erosion of decision making from the Scottish economy has consequences. Just ask the workers at the Grangemouth oil refinery. That imbalance of power leaves those workers and their families, and this strategic national asset, at the mercy of a billionaire tax exile and an overseas Government.
Despite “Green Industrial Strategy” talking about
“Investing in strong research and development foundations”,
when it comes to business research and development, we are seventh out of 12 UK nations and regions, eighth as measured by employment generation—again, a consequence of being a largely subsidiary economy.
In the 1990s, I used to visit the oil rig fabrication yards at Nigg Bay and Ardersier. Back then, they were owned by Brown and Root—Halliburton—and McDermott, both global corporations and both, as it happens, headquartered in Houston, Texas. In its programme, the Government—and the First Minister, this afternoon, and the Deputy First Minister—talked about the redevelopment of those sites. Of course, we all want to see the redevelopment of those sites and we all want to see new life and new jobs in renewable energy as part of a just transition, but we cannot ignore the fact that Nigg Bay is being developed by a corporation headquartered in Japan and Ardersier is being redeveloped by a company that is owned and controlled by the Quantum Capital Group, which, again, is headquartered in Houston, Texas. That will make those yards vulnerable to decisions made in faraway boardrooms, and we will see all the wealth and all the profits being exported.
In the programme for government, we also read of the work of the Scottish National Investment Bank. It has, we are told,
“avoided, reduced, or removed 52,841 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent”.
How was that done? We know that one of the principal ways has been through a £50 million investment in Gresham House, which is now, incidentally, owned by a US private equity firm. The business of Gresham House is not to plant trees or to recover peatland—those are by-products. Its real business model is to help the wealthy avoid paying their fair share of tax on inheritance and capital gains.
Just look, as well, at who won the ScotWind licences awarded by the Scottish Government: Italian, Swedish and Belgian companies; Spanish, French and German utilities; and Norwegian, Dutch and Australian corporations—some of them public, but most of them privately owned. The licences were all given away at a knockdown price. If there is any colonising going on—I know that some people in the SNP like to talk in those terms—we are being colonised by multinational corporations, global capital and financial markets.
As we have learned, the proceeds of ScotWind are not being used to support a just transition or indigenous business development. Our supply chains and our manufacturing base are not being invested in sufficiently. These funds are being used simply to pay for Scottish Government day-to-day expenditure.
Even the community wealth building bill is signalled in the programme for government as a matter for local government, when we all know that, if we are to see transformative change, it must be a matter for the Scottish Government, for national Government agencies, for the Scottish National Investment Bank and for public sector pension funds. It requires a boost to agencies like Co-operative Development Scotland.
We can grow Scotland’s green economy, but if it is in the same hands as the existing economy, with the same distribution and concentration of power and the same gross inequalities that arise from that, then in my view we will have failed. It is high time that we had economic as well as political democracy. It is high time that we steered a different economic path. It is high time that we did think big and act radical.
16:11
I am pleased to speak in this afternoon’s debate on growing Scotland’s green economy. I am going to take a slightly different tack from some of my colleagues. I mentioned the green industrial strategy during First Minister’s question time earlier today, and in doing so I referenced the small section in the strategy that looks at the construction sector, given its role in carbon emissions and the very real need to make the sector less carbon intensive. I was encouraged to hear from the First Minister that there has been a clear and substantial engagement with that vital sector, not only because of the importance of reducing emissions on our journey to net zero, but because our construction sector is fundamental to ensuring that we all have a warm, damp-free and energy-efficient home to stay in.
Tackling housing need and fuel poverty and tackling our climate challenges must go hand in hand. For many of my constituents, that is vital. That will resonate more than talking about the green economy, but those things go hand in hand. I was therefore pleased to see in the green industrial strategy a reiteration of the Scottish Government’s commitment to deliver on our ambition for 110,000 affordable energy-efficient homes by 2032. As a city boy, I note that 10 per cent of those are to be in remote, rural and island communities, which is important, given the unique challenges that they have.
I will mention some other things that “Green Industrial Strategy” contains in relation to the construction and built environment sector. It says that the Scottish Government will
“Explore the potential and impact of modern methods of construction in rural and island contexts.”
It adds:
“This will include work with BE-ST, our innovation centre that supports and provides practical assistance with solutions that advance delivery of a zero carbon built environment.”
I see that the Acting Minister for Climate Action, Alasdair Allan, is in the chamber. He often talks about the huge challenges that his constituents have in heating their homes, let alone getting to net zero, so that innovation by Built Environment—Smarter Transformation will be vital.
The strategy says that the Scottish Government will
“Reform and modernise compulsory purchase legislation in Scotland and consider the case for Compulsory Sales Orders.”
I say to the Deputy First Minister that I hope that we will deliver swiftly on both things. The strategy also says that the Scottish Government will
“Support collaborative and place-based approaches to identify land for affordable housing working closely with Regional Economic Partnerships and our communities.”
I suppose that what I am trying to do is ensure that the construction sector is not squeezed out of the discussion on the green economy. The Construction Industry Training Board estimates that, in 2021, 230,000 people were employed in that sector. In 2022, £13.3 billion was generated by that sector and, according to the Chartered Institute of Building, £4 billion of that came from public sector investment—so, the sector matters. I put it on record that construction does not just mean building homes: it is also about wider energy generation to deliver net zero. I note SSE’s 4.1GW Berwick Bank offshore wind farm, Cerulean Winds’ plans for three floating wind turbine projects and the 2GW West of Orkney wind farm. All those projects are mentioned in a report that says that there is a good 10-year pipeline for construction in that sector.
The CITB warns that there is a need for an additional 3,910 people to be recruited each year. More workers are needed to meet the sector’s demands and to deal with its employment churn; that is a challenge for Scotland’s green economy that has to be tackled. I would be happy to hear in the minister’s summing up what the Scottish Government is doing to address that.
The Scottish house condition survey clearly shows that the private rented sector has the highest emissions in terms of energy efficiency. However, 60 per cent of the private rented sector does not meet the housing quality standard, and 35 per cent is below the tolerable standard. That needs to be tackled on an industrial scale; the green industry should be doing that.
Mr Rennie spoke about area-based energy efficiency schemes, such as insulation measures. I note that, since 2013, the Scottish Government has spent £433 million on tackling that, with 100,000 households and hundreds of local communities benefiting. That is the green economy, and it is really important that we do not squeeze it out in debates such as this.
Finally—I will say this in a non-partisan way—capital budgets matter. We can have a debate about whether our Scottish Government is deploying its budget as the parties in this place see fit, but we know that there have been swingeing cuts to Scotland’s capital budget, which really matters when we try to reach net zero. We need cross-party, non-partisan support in order to challenge the UK Government to tackle those swingeing cuts to Scotland. Likewise, we know that Scotland’s revenue budgets have been deeply undermined by the previous and current UK Governments because of inflation and real-terms cuts. I will not rehearse all the arguments—
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise, but I am coming to a conclusion.
Let us maximise the Scottish Government’s revenue and our investment in our green economy, and let us not undermine our ability to work together on that on a cross-party basis.
16:17
I begin on a positive note by agreeing with the First Minister. In his programme for government statement last week, he said that the policies that he announced
“will be rendered ineffective if we do not also address the greatest existential threat of our times. We must take effective action to tackle the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2024; c 30.]
That the First Minister recognises that is to be welcomed, just as I have always welcomed the ambition that the Scottish Government has shown in setting a high bar for climate action. As I said in last week’s debate on the United Nations Declaration on Future Generations, ambition is nothing without delivering results. I hope that, in closing, the cabinet secretary will use the opportunity to set out more detail than we got in the programme for government and the subsequent green industrial strategy. There is much to be welcomed in the strategy, but it is very high level.
One area that has been mentioned concerns transition plans. We are told that there will be plans for transport, agriculture and land use, and for the built environment and construction, but we have not been told when those plans will be published. The same goes for the already delayed energy strategy and just transition plan, which will be especially important for the future of the north-east region.
There is also the continued uncertainty about the next climate change plan. I appreciate that the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill will set out the timetable for the new plan, but it would be useful if ministers confirmed today that the draft plan will be presented by summer. Otherwise, we risk running out of time for proper scrutiny and amendments before the 2026 election.
Does Maurice Golden recognise that the UK Climate Change Committee said that it would recommend that the Scottish Government should not set draft plans until the CCC has reported on the UK position, which will be around March next year?
The point is that we should have had a climate change plan already. Given where we are today, I think that the timetable that I set out for publication of a draft plan by summer fits well with the point that the member makes.
I turn to areas of the green economy that have not been mentioned so far. The first is aquaculture, in which Scotland has great potential, in particular with regard to seaweed as a resource that can deliver benefits for our coastal communities. However, we need an appropriate regulatory framework, which was supposed to be delivered by early 2023. It would be useful to hear what progress is being made on that.
I also highlight spatial management. As ministers will know, there is increased competition for access to our inshore waters from industries such as fisheries and renewables. The fishing industry regularly raises the issue, and it would be useful to hear from ministers whether the national marine plan 2, which was mentioned in the programme for government, will introduce a coherent system of spatial planning to ensure sustainable use of our seas.
On those issues and many more, there is an urgent need for more detail. How can we expect the public or businesses to lend their support or invest their money in policies for a green economy if they are unsure as to whether the Government can deliver? Whether the Scottish Government likes it or not, its rhetoric often does not match its actions, and that creates uncertainty.
By now, we are all familiar with the list of environmental failures from the SNP Government. That includes everything from the Government missing its emissions targets an astonishing nine times in the past 13 years, and failing to meet more than half its international biodiversity targets, to having still not delivered on its 2013 household recycling target, which is now more than a decade late.
The divergence between what the Scottish Government says and what it does is only going to get worse. In its “Programme for Government 2024-25”, the SNP claimed that it
“will continue to lead on climate action internationally”.
However, not only has it abandoned the key 2030 net zero target—it also hid its failure for seven months before finally having to admit that it was off track. It says that it is committed to delivering a circular economy, but it has already watered down the Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 and largely limited discussion in its programme for government to waste and litter regulations.
There is divergence when the Scottish Government talks about a green economy at all, after having drastically cut funding that was meant to support the transition to a more sustainable economy. We need only look at the budgets that the Government has cut in the past two weeks: nature restoration; energy efficiency and decarbonisation; the just transition fund; sustainable travel; and, of course, the net zero and energy budget itself.
It is great that the First Minister recognises the need to act. He now needs to recognise that a green economy cannot be built on false promises and budget cuts.
16:24
I associate myself with the remarks on today’s significant news that were made by the First Minister, party leaders and members who represent the Grangemouth refinery area. My thoughts are also with all the workers and people who are involved in the refinery’s operation and in the wider economy throughout the Forth estuary area, part of which I represent. The closure of the refinery is a significant development in Scotland’s overall history of capacity for energy and electricity production, which has been really positive, including in recent years.
At this point, it is important to recognise Scotland’s remarkable journey in growing the green economy, particularly in the production of renewable electricity. For example, in 2010, the operational capacity for renewable electricity generation was 4.4GW and, in March this year, it was 15.4GW. Just through the projects that are in the pipeline, we envisage that more than three times that capacity could be realised.
As Kevin Stewart did, people often talk about the impact on energy demand, but if we think about the capacity that I mentioned and the huge progress that has been made, there is no doubt that Scotland’s green economy development has been a huge success.
In the context of the times that we have been in—austerity from 2010, which was a UK Government choice; Brexit, a development that has negatively impacted the UK economy; an unpredictable pandemic that affected us all in negative ways; the cost of living crisis and global issues such as the war in Ukraine—through all of that, Scotland’s renewable energy has increased and its green economy has strengthened.
For me, that is most clearly demonstrated in the recent story of the port of Leith. In about 2010, just before the financial crisis, the proposals were to drain the port of Leith and turn it into a residential development for people who work in the financial sector. After the banking crisis, those plans changed dramatically.
Now the plan for the port of Leith, backed by inward investment and patient capital, is to create one of the biggest renewable energy hubs in Europe, with £50 million of investment—something that I strongly support. As things stand, that plan is in a good position. There is an exciting proposal for Vestas, the huge Danish wind turbine manufacturer, to build in the port of Leith what might be Europe’s biggest offshore wind power production plant. I am working to support that and I am grateful that the Government is engaged in that proposal.
As others have said, the Berwick Bank development is connected to that work. I have previously raised in Parliament the issue of consenting times, so I welcome the planning hub proposals in the programme for government. That is an important step forward.
Colleagues should also remember that the concerns that RSPB Scotland raised about Berwick Bank relate to the biodiversity challenge that we face. If we are going to have passion for increasing our renewable energy production and protecting biodiversity, sometimes those matters have to be mutually considered.
That is an excellent point. It is key that, when we do renewables, we also do biodiversity and tackle the nature crisis. Given the decades of experience that we have, if we shared best practice and experience on what works best for animals, birds and our natural environment, would that help to move that work on and get renewables going?
I cannot speak on individual applications, because I am not close enough to the detail, but I envisage that an important balance of consideration is being undertaken with regard to the Berwick Bank proposal. I strongly support what that could unlock for the Vestas proposals in the port of Leith.
Whether it is in relation to the port of Leith or more widely—although I can speak for my constituency in particular—the skills that will be required to meet the demands of those new opportunities really matter. That is why I welcome the post-school education and skills reform bill, having considered such matters on the Education, Children and Young People Committee with others who are in the chamber today.
We really need to press ahead to make sure that our young people benefit from such huge opportunities. The work of those brilliant companies and the proposals that are being taken forward in our country can be realised through the hard work and talent of our people.
We move to closing speeches.
16:30
The Government’s motion refers to
“concrete actions to accelerate the transition”.
That is certainly a description of what is needed from a green industrial strategy; sadly, in my view, it is also a description of what is missing from it.
I do not intend to focus too much on the fundamental economic differences that we have. Greens, in particular, have a critique of the predilection for economic growth as an end in itself. For us, there is direct conflict between growth and sustainability as objectives in an economy. However, the fact that the green industrial strategy emphasises growth over sustainability is not a great surprise, given that that is the fundamental difference not just between the Greens and the SNP but between the Greens and every other party in the chamber.
However, even from a perspective that sees green industry as an alternative way of delivering growth in an economy as polluting industries decline, the strategy is lacking. Fundamentally, it offers no clear path away from fossil fuel industries—the dirty, polluting industries of the dying economy. The focus on carbon capture, utilisation and storage, and on fossil hydrogen, emphasises the problem for me. If both those technologies were to come to pass and to deliver on the scale that the Scottish Government clearly has in mind for them, they would lock us in to our overreliance on a fossil fuel economy and on the on-going extraction of fossil fuels.
During the debate, somebody—I apologise that I have forgotten who—made the point that plastics, paints and chemical feedstocks also come from hydrocarbons. The idea that those hydrocarbons will continue to be extracted if we stop using them for energy and only use them for other purposes is not a viable proposition. I do not think that we would find an oil and gas major in the world that would accept the idea that it carry on investing in extracting hydrocarbons without being able to use them as fuel.
Grangemouth is a clear example of the vulnerability and precarity of our economy through its overexposure to and overreliance on fossil fuel. Members from all parties have spoken of their concern for the community, the workforce and their families, who are now left high and dry without a clear proposition of how a just transition will be brought about.
However, Grangemouth is far from the only community in that position. I make the comparison with Longannet, to go back more than a decade. People had known for years that Scotland’s last coal-fired power station was going to close—should close, would close, had to close—if we were to have any chance at all of reducing our carbon emissions. Despite knowing that, the Scottish Government, local government, the owners and—I am sad to say—even the union at the time kept on saying, “We’re fully committed to the long-term future of the plant.” If we were serious about a just transition, the last 10 years of the operation of that plant should have been dedicated to investment in what the community needed when it closed. Sadly, what we got instead was that full commitment to its long-term future until the date for its closure was announced, which was followed by a decision to set up a task force.
That is exactly what we are seeing again right now, although I am not making a direct comparison between Grangemouth and Longannet, because there are other ways that we could repurpose the Grangemouth plant. The issue is not about closure, which was a clear expectation. The issue is the need for a just transition. That has been a clear expectation for years, yet it is utterly lacking. That is the case not just for Grangemouth; detailed just transition plans for other communities that depend on such fuels are also utterly lacking from the green industrial strategy.
Other things are missing as well. Demand reduction has been mentioned in relation to heat in buildings by my colleague Lorna Slater, by Sarah Boyack and by one or two other members. It is worth acknowledging that the risk to jobs at Mitsubishi in Livingston results principally from a decline in the export market. Mitsubishi has been exporting heat pumps to other European countries, and that demand has not kept pace with expectations. The company has invested in production for domestic demand, and if the UK and Scottish Governments can work together to find a solution that protects those jobs, I wish them well.
However, the long-term viability of the incredible opportunity that the heat in buildings programme gives us will be realised only if the Scottish Government has the political will to face down the critics on its own back benches and regulate with great ambition to say that it is serious about the heat in buildings agenda. That will create the conditions for investment in skills, capacity and the supply chain, and in the innovation that is already happening.
Demand reduction needs to relate to resources as well as energy. The potential for repair and reuse skills becoming an important part of our circular economy needs to be part of our approach.
Finally, there is nothing in the green industrial strategy on ownership, decentralisation or the risks of financialisation. Some members slightly turned their nose up when Richard Leonard was making some very important and serious points on that issue. However, I do not want to swap a bunch of multinational fossil fuel companies for a bunch of multinational renewables companies. I want the agenda to be one that ushers in a new economy that is fundamentally more equal and that does not allow the wealth that needs to be invested in the green transition to be hoarded by a few billionaire tax exiles.
16:37
Scottish Labour welcomes the publication of the long-promised and oft-delayed green industrial strategy—it was promised at the start of the parliamentary session. We are in a global race to compete in renewable energies, and other countries have not been wasting their time as the Scottish Government has been. With every year that passes, it becomes less likely that Scotland can become a world leader in any of those industries. Some of that imperative is highlighted in the strategy, particularly when it addresses where to seize the opportunities in floating offshore wind.
Sarah Boyack pointed out the plethora of other key policy documents on which industry and investment rely that have been long delayed by the Government. I hope that we can see some of them soon, and perhaps with a bit more notice, as other members have mentioned.
Delays have been a common theme throughout the debate—critically, delays in permitting some of those developments. Ben Macpherson set out some of the challenges and opportunities very well. The Deputy First Minister—rightly—cites the Government’s restrictions on what it can say about significant applications that are in place, but that does not negate the fact that they are taking far too long to be dealt with. She will, I hope, reflect on the implementation plan for the strategy—on what we can do, in legal and resource terms, to ensure that implementation happens.
The SNP has failed to live up to the promises that it has made in this area. A decade ago, the Scottish Government wanted us to be the green energy capital of Europe, with around 28,000 jobs in offshore wind alone; by 2021, we had an estimated 3,100 full-time jobs in offshore wind. Those were lofty aims, but the Government’s failure to give a strategic direction to industry for a decade means that we have too often been idling while other countries have pulled ahead. The reality is that value chain investment is always about the employment that it can generate and the wage packets that it can provide for people.
Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government stood before Parliament to make the now annual announcement of emergency budget cuts, with nearly £1 billion in cuts and adjustments. At the heart of that was the £460 million being poured into the SNP’s black hole, instead of being invested in public services. I was reminded of a quote from one Kate Forbes MSP, who said, back in March:
“We have often lamented the way in which, during the past 30 years, revenues from oil and gas have been squandered on annual running costs, rather than on establishing a sovereign wealth fund ... What plans does the Scottish Government have to ensure that we will not lament a similar situation happening with options fees from our great renewables potential in 30 years’ time?”—[Official Report, 27 March 2024; c 14.]
The Deputy First Minister did not have to wait for 30 years; some 30 weeks later, she was losing the debate in the Cabinet. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with Kate Forbes MSP or with the incompetent finance secretary about what should happen to those moneys?
Even today, we had protestations from the First Minister about the financial situation that, supposedly—as he said to Parliament—necessitated in-year cuts to his budget. That was fundamentally untrue. All the independent experts—the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Fraser of Allander Institute, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Audit Scotland—agree that all that was long predicted and that it was up to this Government to get a grip of it. That is how we get proper, steady investment in the kind of programmes that are set out in parts of the document.
There is huge potential in that area. As Willie Rennie did, I recently spent some time on a boat out to the Seagreen wind farm—fortunately, not with Maurice Golden. It is inspiring, and is vital to our clean energy mission across the UK for reducing carbon emissions. However, we have to note that almost none of it was made here. Simply not enough of it belongs to us—as a country and as citizens. We should have stakes in such projects, because foreign Governments have, and they will generate billions of pounds for their citizens instead of ours. I agree with Richard Leonard on that. I read much of his work, which he published some 25 years ago, about the shape of our economy and where we want the benefits to flow.
The establishment of the GB energy company is critical to meeting that end. I know that the SNP abstained last week on the creation of that company—goodness only knows why—but I commend to Kevin Stewart the Great British Energy Bill, which sets out that wholly owned public company, and in particular clause 3(2)—
On that point—
No—I will continue. The question was asked of me from the SNP benches. Clause 3(2) sets out in full the objects that are to be created:
“(a) the production, distribution, storage and supply of clean energy,
(b) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from energy produced from fossil fuels,
(c) improvements in energy efficiency, and
(d) measures for ensuring the security of the supply of energy.”
That is what GB energy is for. It is being created to enable us to take stakes in such projects, so that we can have benefits for our long-term future as a country.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am just closing; I am in my last 30 seconds.
In that, ownership is absolutely clear. We should see a new focus on that kind of community benefit—not £1,000 for the scout hall, but a share of the profits forever. Domestic manufacturing has to be a part of that. That is the real community benefit—jobs, wages and making sure that we can sustain community and country for the long term.
From start to end, the design and handling of the ScotWind process has been a case study in incompetence—from initially pricing the round at £75 million to selling it for a fraction of the price of comparable licences internationally. To use the Deputy First Minister’s term, that money is now being “squandered”. Let us face up to it. We have to ensure that we can invest against some of the aspirations and the risk, or no strategy will deliver the benefits that we need.
16:43
To pick up on a theme of the debate, anyone who spends too much time with Maurice Golden will get themselves into choppy waters.
Members: Oh!
As a member for Central Scotland, I, too, have to mention Grangemouth today, because the news has been devastating. I hope that our two Governments can work together to save that facility. I think that it has a future, and I will go on to say why.
The title of the debate is “Growing Scotland’s Green Economy.” Earlier, I asked the Deputy First Minister about the announcement by Alexander Dennis, which is also in my region—it has two plants, in Falkirk and Larbert—that 160 jobs are at risk. In its press release announcing that terrible news, it mentions phase 2 of the Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund—ScotZEB 2.
Members may not be aware of what ScotZEB 2 is. It is a Scottish Government fund for zero emission buses or coaches, so it is very much in keeping with the debate. Alexander Dennis says that
“government zero-emission bus funding has disproportionately benefitted competitors from lower-cost and lower-security economies.”
In a letter to me, Fiona Hyslop confirms that 66 per cent—the majority—of the orders from that fund have gone to China and 17.6 per cent have gone to Alexander Dennis, which is Scotland-based. For me, that is a problem. We have Scottish Government money going to China and not to Scotland or even the rest of the UK. There is an issue there, and the Scottish Government needs to take a good look at it.
Paul Davies, the managing director of Alexander Dennis, said:
“We are deeply disappointed that the ongoing effect of various government policies”—
he mentions the UK Government, too—
“is now threatening some of these jobs.”
He went on to say:
“Competition ... is healthy, but when taxpayer money is spent with little domestic industrial, economic or employment benefit and bus companies effectively are incentivised to buy from lower-security economies, it creates an incomprehensible dynamic and an uneven playing field.”
That is the effect of that Scottish Government fund. When we are talking about growing Scotland’s green economy, we really need to look closer to home.
I read with interest the green industrial strategy, which was published yesterday. There is some well-intentioned stuff in there. It talks about
“Maximising Scotland’s wind economy ... Developing a self-sustaining carbon capture, utilisation and storage sector ... Supporting green economy professional and financial services, with global reach ... Growing our hydrogen sector”
and
“Establishing Scotland as a competitive centre for the clean Energy Intensive Industries of the future”.
That all sounds good enough, but let us take just one of those examples—hydrogen. The strategy lays out the actions that the Government will take:
“Identify barriers to hydrogen production development ... Encourage domestic demand for renewable and low carbon hydrogen and hydrogen products ... Support the sector to develop new place-based hubs of co-located hydrogen production and demand”
and
“Maximise export opportunities for hydrogen and hydrogen products.”
When we see words such as “identify”, “encourage” and “support” in Government documents, it often means that nothing will actually happen.
In part, I agree with the member—I do not love words such as “support” and “encourage”—but I happen to be on the page that he has just read from, and underneath those high-level objectives he will see things that are specific, such as the Aberdeen hydrogen hub, which is a tangible example of the work that we are doing.
I can give the Deputy First Minister another idea. I have quoted in committee European Union regulation 2023/1804 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure. Members will never have heard me say, “Let’s follow the EU”, but I do so on this one, because the regulation says that, by the end of December 2025, there should be one recharging pool at least every 60km—that is 37 miles—on the main road network in the EU.
The regulation also does a number of other things in relation to hydrogen infrastructure for road vehicles, liquefied methane for road transport, electricity supply in ports, electricity for aircraft, and railway infrastructure to include hydrogen and battery power. We are seeing hydrogen fuel stations being installed along main routes throughout Europe—measurable outcomes with measurable carbon emission benefits. If we do that, we create a market. If we create a market, people start to change behaviour.
It is the same with—
Will Graham Simpson give way?
Actually, I will not, because I think that I am out of time, and I do not have any extra time.
There are things that we can do, but we are not doing them. We need to consider examples such as that one in order to create a market in hydrogen. If we can create a market in hydrogen, we can benefit places such as Grangemouth. It is the same with sustainable aviation fuel.
It is clear that, despite what the cabinet secretary claimed earlier, the Scottish Government’s record in climate change is poor. It has missed target after target, as Maurice Golden said. The Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Bill will not change the climate—the title is a misnomer. We do not know when carbon budgets will be set, we do not know what the new level of emissions reduction ambition will be, and the Government will be able to produce a climate change plan whenever it likes. Warm words will not cool the climate, but action might.
16:50
Well, I think that it has been a good debate. Members obviously do not have the same level of confidence as I do in their ability to read, digest and pontificate on a document that has been published a day before. I acknowledge that Graham Simpson did have time to read and to digest the strategy. I am very happy to pick up with colleagues over the coming weeks or, indeed, months once they have had a chance to read it, too. However, I am not entirely confident that members’ speeches would be that much different if they had had the opportunity to read and digest it before pontificating on it.
Does the Deputy First Minister accept that the Scottish Trades Union Congress has read “Green Industrial Strategy” as it was consulted about it? If so, how does she respond to the STUC saying that
“This is yet another example of government strategy that talks up potential without matching it with the necessary policy”?
I am delighted that Richard Leonard has put on the record the fact that we have engaged with partners and stakeholders in advance of the strategy’s publication. The comments that they have made in public reflect comments and discussions that we had in private, although those were in more detail. The point that I made to them privately, which I will put on the record now, is that the document very much needs to be seen as one in a suite of documents.
What are we doing with this document? I know that many members have given suggestions and ideas about things that are missing from it. However, it cannot be an all-consuming document that does absolutely everything and namechecks everybody. The point of it is to be, in essence, a window into Scotland.
We hear time and again from investors and developers that we are not clear enough on our priority areas. That is one of the criticisms that came through from the investor panel: we must be clear about what we want to achieve and we must focus in on a few areas, and that is what we seek to do. The strategy will sit alongside the just transition plan; they have different audiences and are focused on achieving slightly different aims. This is very much a prospectus for potential investment.
On some of the other commentary that we have heard, I note that many members have made the point that Scotland has unrivalled natural resources, which I hope is a point on which we can all agree. However, the key is whether that creates jobs here in Scotland or overseas in other countries, and I accept that that is one of the biggest challenges for us to combat on the cusp of the green industrial revolution.
I see great examples of businesses and organisations that are doing that already. For example, in response to Willie Rennie, I mentioned Flowcopter, which builds autonomous air systems that will completely change the nature of the industry. As its chief executive put it to me yesterday, Flowcopter is a Scottish business in the Scottish supply chain and it is based in Scotland. It will completely disrupt the industry and, in essence, make it cheaper to replace helicopters and safer when it comes to servicing the offshore energy industry.
We have to acknowledge what was at times exhausting negativity in certain comments but then rise above it to identify where things are working well and look to replicate that as the norm.
Lorna Slater is someone whom I have long respected—few in the chamber have the lived and professional experience that she has—so I take her comments on the green industrial strategy very seriously. She made a comment that I think gets to the heart of what we need to do. She said that, where private money is available, we should not displace that with public funding. At a time when there is limited public capital funding, it is absolutely imperative that that public funding is spent on public goods and public benefit, and that it delivers a return for the nation in a way that is sustainable and creates fairness.
That is why, in the green industrial strategy in particular, we endeavour to attract private investment in areas where the public penny cannot be spent. We will look at how we can do more to attract private investment in the right areas, in accordance with our priorities, in a way that delivers public benefit for communities, but we need to do that at a time when our public finances are extremely stretched. We have seen in the past week just how stretched they are.
Will the Deputy First Minister come on to address the economic arguments that were made in relation to, for example, the hoarding of wealth by the super-rich—by billionaire tax exiles such as Jim Ratcliffe, who has failed the community of Grangemouth so grievously? Is that not a fundamental reason why Governments do not have the resources that they need in order to be able to invest in the green transition? Will the Government come on to address that issue of financialisation and privatisation, which is at the heart of the economic problems that we are facing?
In part, I agree with the argument that our natural assets in renewable energy must go towards delivering public good for the nation. We can see a different example of the same principle right now across the Highlands and Islands, where, as Edward Mountain mentioned, communities are seeing the privatisation of a natural asset but are not benefiting directly from that. We need to protect against that, in sharp contrast to what has happened before. Mr Harvie gave the example of Grangemouth.
On where we go next, it is a huge relief that would-be or potential investors appear to listen less to the Opposition and more to the facts, which is why they are interested in investing in Scotland. We have made it clear in the green industrial strategy and in other documents that we have published that we expect investors who want to come and invest in Scotland to do so in a way that is consistent with our values and in a way that delivers a public good and creates good, well-paid jobs.
Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?
I think that I am running out of time, but go for it.
I will be brief. The Deputy First Minister has talked about investment coming in. What would help with that would be the release of the energy strategy. We were told that it was almost ready just before the general election, but it has been delayed. When will that strategy come out? Will it remove the presumption against oil and gas developments?
Mr Lumsden will be able to read that strategy when it is published. I cannot give him a specific date right now, but it is part of the suite of documents that we want to publish as quickly as possible. “Green Industrial Strategy” is the first of those documents.
I appreciate that I am running out of time, but, in my final minute, I will touch on a point that Michael Marra made—not just because I am delighted to have been quoted, but because I want to talk specifically about GB energy. We have had some really good engagement with the UK Government on GB energy. The point that I made to Michael Shanks in the first communication that we had was that we are willing to engage with GB energy. The first of the two things that we want in response is for the Scottish devolved institutions to be treated with parity. We want Crown Estate Scotland to be given the same respect and the same powers that the Crown Estate is given elsewhere in the UK, and to be involved in the same dialogue.
Secondly, we want GB energy to act as a boost for Scotland and to work with initiatives that are already happening. Rather than GB energy coming in and duplicating work that is already under way, we want it to come in alongside that work and build partnerships. Those are the two conditions that I set out, and which I hope will be delivered.
In summary, the green industrial strategy will deliver on our objectives, there is much more work to be done, everything is in implementation, and I look forward to working with all who have a stake in delivering a just transition and maximising prosperity for this generation and the next.
That concludes the debate on the programme for government—growing Scotland’s green economy.
Air adhart
Decision Time